Cheruiyot & 5 others v Kirobon Farmers Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E067 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6717 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cancelled land injunction orders because the applicants hid earlier litigation over the same property, and dismissed their contempt claims with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 2nd Defendant's application to set aside the interim orders of 14th October, 2024 and 29th November, 2024 has merit.
- 2.Whether the Plaintiffs have met the threshold for the grant of an order of injunction?
- 3.Whether the Plaintiffs' application for contempt has merit?
Key legal issues
#Non-disclosure of material facts in obtaining ex-parte orders
The Plaintiffs were guilty of non-disclosure of the judgment in ELC No. 29 of 2017 over the same land and the pending appeal; the ex-parte orders were set aside and discharged.
The Plaint and supporting affidavit were silent on the prior judgment and decree in ELC No. 29 of 2017 over the same parcel, indeed affirming no prior proceedings existed. The same counsel had sought joinder in the ensuing appeal, showing the Plaintiffs knew of the litigation. The uncontroverted history of litigation was of sufficient materiality to justify immediate discharge of the orders without examining the merits, and equity denies relief to a party with unclean hands.
Application for injunction
Dismissed because it was anchored on the discharged ex-parte orders.
The court reasoned that once the foundation orders fell for non-disclosure, the injunction application, dependent on those orders, could not survive; the non-disclosure determination was made first precisely because an adverse finding would dispose of the injunction and contempt applications.
Contempt of court
Dismissed with costs as the orders allegedly disobeyed had been set aside and were anchored on non-disclosure.
Since the orders of 14th October, 2024 and 29th November, 2024 were discharged for material non-disclosure, the alleged breach of 25th November, 2024 could not found a contempt finding; the contempt application collapsed with the underlying orders.
Legal principles established
#- A party applying for ex-parte relief must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including prior litigation over the subject matter; failure disentitles the applicant to the court's discretion and justifies discharge of the order without examination of the merits.
- An order of injunction being an equitable remedy, an applicant must come to court with clean hands and good faith to benefit from the court's discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The ex-parte injunctive orders granted on 14th October, 2024 and 29th November, 2024 are set aside and discharged
- 2.The Plaintiffs' application for injunction dated 11th October, 2024 is dismissed with costs
- 3.The Plaintiffs' application for contempt dated 28th November, 2024 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with Molo South/Langwenda Block 17/148, 152, 151, 150, 149 and 153 (Seguton)
The ex-parte orders anchoring the application were set aside for non-disclosure of material facts
Committal of the 2nd Defendant, the OCS Sirikwa Police Station, the OCPD Kuresoi North and Tango Auctioneers to civil jail for contempt and allied punitive orders
The contempt application was anchored on orders discharged for non-disclosure of material facts
Costs
The applications for injunction and contempt of court are dismissed with costs to the Defendants (2nd Defendant).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The ex-parte injunctive orders granted against the Defendants are hereby set aside and discharged.
It follows that the Applications for injunction and contempt of court against the named contemnors are dismissed with costs, as the orders were anchored on non-disclosure of material facts.
the issue of non-disclosure is a serious issue and where a court finds that a claimant is guilty of such, then such a claimant cannot benefit from the discretion of the court.
Suficient cause is a question of fact and the court has to exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Plaintiffs' joinder application was Civil Appeal Application No. E105 of 2022 but elsewhere refers to a pending appeal as Civil Appeal No. E105 of 2023, and also refers to 'Nauru Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No E105 of 2023' and 'Nakuru Civil Appeal No 105 of 2023', suggesting inconsistent appeal numbers.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cheruiyot & 5 others v Kirobon Farmers Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E067 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6717 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6717/eng@2025-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.